The Supreme Court on Friday said that a judge is judged everyday by the public, litigants and lawyers and their conduct is always under scrutiny as they speak through their judgments.
The observations formed part of an order released by the top court on Friday giving reasons for not entertaining a set of two petitions challenging the recommendation to appoint Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri (as she then was) as an additional judge of the Madras high court. The top court had dismissed the petitions on Tuesday, the same day when she took oath, while indicating that detailed reasons will follow.
A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai said, “Not only is the conduct and judgments delivered considered at the time of confirmation, a judge is judged everyday by the lawyers, litigants and the public, as the courts are open and the judges speak by giving reasons in writing for their decisions.”
“It goes without saying that the conduct of the judge and her/his decisions must reflect and show independence, adherence to the democratic and constitutional values,” the short order of 9 pages said. “This is necessary as the judiciary holds the centre stage in protecting and strengthening democracy and upholding human rights and rule of law.” it added.
The court had dismissed two petitions filed by lawyers of the Madras high court who objected to the elevation of justice Gowri (as she presently is) on the basis of her statements against minorities and her alleged association with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). She was Deputy Solicitor General representing the Union government before the Madras high court prior to her elevation.
The court referred to several past decisions of the Supreme Court and said, “The question whether a person is fit to be appointed as a judge essentially involves the aspect of suitability and stands excluded from the purview of judicial review.”
Giving no room for apprehensions raised in the petitions led by Anna Mathews and R Vaigai, the bench said, “On taking oath the person pledges to work as a judge to uphold the Constitution and the laws.” The judges cited Article 51A of the Constitution which is a Fundamental Duty cast on all citizens and “more so on every judge” to promote harmony, spirit of common brotherhood among all transcending religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities. It said, “Principle of secularism and dignity of every individual – regardless of the religion, caste or creed, is the foundation of rule of law and equal protection of laws.”
Once the collegium of the high court recommends a name for elevation as judge, intelligence agencies give their inputs after conducting a background check. This information along with comments from the government are placed before the collegium of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India and two senior most judges. A number of representations to “shoot down” the recommendations are received and scrutinised following which a final call is taken by the collegium to recommend a name to the government.
The petitions were mentioned before the Chief Justice of India on Monday with less than 24 hours remaining for justice Gowri’s swearing-in ceremony. On Tuesday, the hearing of the case was preponed as the oath was to be administered at 10.35am.
On February 1, 21 lawyers from the Madras high court wrote to the President and Supreme Court collegium to recall the January 17 recommendation for appointing her as a judge.
Despite receiving the representation, the name was not withdrawn. This became a factor for the top court to dismiss the petitions. The court was also of the view that political backgrounds of persons elevated as judges of the high courts and Supreme Court has not been an absolute bar to appointment of otherwise a suitable person.
The judges further observed “There have been cases where the persons recommended for elevation have expressed reservations or even criticised policies or actions, but this has not been held to be a ground to treat them as unsuitable.”